I'm going to go duck behind a turned-over table in case it gets ugly in here. Edit: After I throw up.
Historically, I rate Barrera at featherweight and Marquez at feather/superfeatherweight. Those are his major wins as I see them (I scored Pac-Marquez 1 for Pac 115-112, scored the rematch 114-114). For me, Barrera and Marquez are some of the top fighters in those weight classes of the last 20 years, and Pac beat prime versions of both. I do agree that Oscar was done, that win doesn't come into my thinking much, but unlike most I do place real value in the second fight with Erik Morales. It was undoubtedly a past-prime Morales, but still a good version, still the same guy who beat Pac a year previously (I think weight, stylistic and motivational issues had more to do with the Raheem defeat than any mysterious decline in his powers that occurred in the several months between the Pac fight and that fight). I don't rate it as highly as the Barrera or Marquez wins, but to meet a fired-up Erik Morales who produced a similar effort to the night he beat Pac, and to become the first man to properly drop and then stop him, that is a very solid win because Morales, like Barrera and Marquez, is historically a good good fighter. I agree with you to an extent on Hatton, Cotto and Clottey. Of those wins, I see Cotto being by far the best win, and it is a win I rate highly because he is a naturally bigger man, he sandwiched that fight with good results, and in his own way he is an effective fighter. However, I agree with you for sure that he is not a good welterweight in a historic sense. He is too flawed for that, if he couldn't defend against the very basic and obvious arc of Antonio Margarito's offence, then what chance would he have had against guys like De La Hoya, Trinidad and Mosley? And that's not even bringing serious ATGs like Leonard and Hearns into the equation, which would be silly. I'm inclined to rate even the sort of second-tier welters of the last 20 years higher than Cotto h2h, guys like Forrest, Quartey and McGirt, so I see where you're coming from there. Hatton and Clottey are even more flawed than Cotto, and are a far cry from the standard of the Mexican trio. Hatton deserves respect as a light-welter because he beat some decent comp there and was The Ring champ and undefeated at the weight, but he was not in any way a great lww. The 90s Tszyu would have brutalized him. Clottey has some decent attributes, but will never be a genuinely top fighter. I still like that win for the size disadvantage and the dominance, but it was a stylistic foregone conclusion if I'm being honest. That was my most critical and objective look at Pac's best wins. I think his resume stands up to anyone else from this era, and I think it would be very easy to dissect Chavez's resume in similar fashion.
Call me a *******, but I actually think that Pac has risen to a higher tier than Chavez at this time.
They are close, Chavez is a little aheard still in my eyes but Pac is still rolling so who knows by the end of Pacs career.
*******, *******, pac pac pac pac...... *******!!! With fries on the side. Nah, there's actually a fair argument for ranking Pacquiao higher than Chavez in an overall career sense, perhaps more so than vice-versa actually. I think you'd have to be a Chaveztard to say that it isn't up for debate. But I still think that Chavez probably pastes him black, blue and indigo in a h2h meeting.
DLH was definitely more than "serviceable". You have to place Pacquiao's achievements in context. Barkley and Moore were not great champions, but they were great wins for Duran.
Agree. If only DLH hadn't been in such obviously pitiful shape on fight night.... Could have been a really entertaining scrap.
Agree. Had the same cards for both Pac fights myself, though I had Pac taking the first fight a little closer when I watched the first fight again about a year ago. I agree it was a good win, but I'm a little more inclined to say that Morales had lost a little bit since the first Pac fight. Psychologically, I don't think he was up for Pac the second time round like he was the first time. Even though he was unmotivated, out of his weight range and stylitically disadvantaged against Raheem, a loss to a Raheem level fighter probably planted a bit of doubt in his mind and let him know that his wave had finally crashed and would start to roll back. This is one area where we disagree a bit I suppose... Would it have mattered even if Erik was as good as the first time around? Most likely not; Pac did fight a better fight the second time round. Well said. Yeah, you've got to say these wins are made very good wins again, given the size differentials. Which is definitely something for Pac to hang his hat on. Beating good fighters bigger than you is no mean feat. Agree, and thanks for your honest thoughts - even though I expected nothing less from you. :good
LOL Boxing has changed in the last 20 years. The brilliant old school trainers are no more, there is more science to the sport. It is recognized that if you earn the money there is no need to fight so often, and preparation benefits from a 12 week camp, rather than ticking over fighting non title fights. Boxing has had to try and adapt to the 21st century. Yes it is safer and more sterile, and because the world is a lot smaller due to technology, fighters like Pacquiao get recognition; recognition that he would not of got even 20 years ago. A lot of people would say that is good, and there is a lot of positives there. But I do not see that way. I liked the grubbiness of the sport, the mystery of only knowing names of foreign (Asian) fighters and not knowing if they were for real. That was in part what made the sport special to me. Sadly that bit of sport is dead, there are no magical, seemingly mythical names, there is no innocence or naivety to the sport. Also today's fighters are monsters, and lack that everyman touch. Sure you were probably never going to be the Heavyweight Champion of the World in the 1930's, but there was that little hope that if you kept doing that job on the dock, maybe you would improve your right hand power to Braddockesque proportions, like Jack did. Now a days it is supplements, diet print outs, training performance analysis and for goodness sake, Weight lifting! I know that maximizes the performance of the boxers today, but it does seem to take the fun out of a sport, that once could have every shape and size compete very often to a very high level. That is why IMO Pacquiao cannot be compared to Chavez, as he is fighting in a different sport, sadly under the same name. The sport of boxing should of been retired 15 or so years ago, and given a new name, to make people aware of it being a whole new game.
LoL at the options. Yes, Pac is on the same tier. In fact I have Pac ahead of Chavez when factoring H2H and accomplishments. If I were to factor just accomplishments, he would still be out ahead. But they are on the small level.